Re: [css3-images] 2011/12/01 ED section 4.2 review notes

On Dec 6, 2011, at 1:14 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 6, 2011, at 12:27 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I did have a suggested change during our discussions, that would make me
>> happier. I don't think I ever got a reply. So the agreement is not quite as
>> resounding as you imply (though I think that I could live with it). My
>> comment included a preference for <size><shape> in that order, which you can
>> see below, and which Brian also seems to prefer, if anything is ordered (his
>> option F). I would have said so, if I could have made it to that telecon
>> that day. I go further, to say that the shape keyword is actually pretty
>> redundant when lengths are given for size. Here is that thread (unquoted
>> part below is me from November 25, during Thanksgiving weekend, then the
>> next telecon was the one I missed):
> [snip]
> 
> I don't see any problems with your suggestions, but they also don't
> seem to bring any great benefit.  

I think they do. They make it more readable, and as per Brian's arguments, simpler to remember whether order is important or not. It would also have the potential benefit of make the four of us (who were discussing this) happy, instead of two of us. That authors wouldn't have to write 'ellipse' all the time strikes me as a pretty significant improvement, since the latest grammar now has that requirement for the first time, unless 'circle' or a size is given. Especially since 'ellipse' is easy to misspell for those who don't type it every day (I've certainly misspelled 'ellipsis' a few times).

> Now that we've solved the core
> problem (function arguments too unreadable, and difficult to extend),
> have integrated author feedback, and have a resolution and a published
> WD with the grammar, I would greatly prefer to not make any more
> changes unless they are actually addressing an error or important
> omission.  Sorry. ;_;

What was pasted into the irc for the telecon was a simplified version that hid nuances that I clearly the four of us hadn't quite reached consensus on. I think you jumped the gun on it. The WG would likely quickly resolve on a refinement if the four of us could agree. It's a cop out to refuse to do a little better along the same lines now because of the general WG resolution.

Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 17:46:39 UTC